Great article Lyle. One thing the study missed with the 10% improvement is length of Career. For example, MMA. Guys in MMA (one the most grueling and dangerous sports), are competing until 40 at a high level and are in the best shape of their lives. So the 10% sounds correct until you go past the normal age one is expected to compete. At that point it becomes the difference between competing and not competing at all.

Great article Lyle. One thing the study missed with the 10% improvement is length of Career. For example, MMA. Guys in MMA (one the most grueling and dangerous sports), are competing until 40 at a high level and are in the best shape of their lives. So the 10% sounds correct until you go past the normal age one is expected to compete. At that point it becomes the difference between competing and not competing at all.

Not even remotely relevant to my point. We can compare an 85 year old to a 25 year old too. But it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

I thought your point was that drugs help more than a little. If that isn't the case then yes I missed your point.

I read the point of the article as 10% sounds minimal as just a number (and is peddled as a justification for why drugs aren't the reason someone is very successful), but when put into real world meaning, 10% is HUGE, which I fully agree with. Everything gets exponentially harder at high levels and 10% difference could mean 100x more difficult to achieve.

titles/headers/semantics are probably a little confusing for the average reader who glosses over or jumps to the bottom.

Great article, but would drugs not contribute more to the bodybuilder's size once you adjust for skeleton and organ weight?

It appears you arrived at the 30-40% improvement figure as the difference between a maxed out natural and a maxed out juicer (280lbs - 185lbs = 95lbs; 95lbs / 280lbs = 33%).

However, if you assume that both bodybuilders have about 100lbs of skeleton and vital organ weight (just for ease of running the numbers), the difference drugs make is considerably greater.

Let's assume that drugs predominantly grow muscle (there may be some visceral organ growth or bone density increase, but let's assume this is minimal). In which instance the difference is between a natural bodybuilder carrying 85lbs of muscle (185lb total bodyweight - 100lbs of skeleton and vital organs) and a juicer carrying 180lbs of muscle (280lbs total bodyweight - 100lbs of skeleton and vital organs).

From article: "Hell, consider that Bolt has run a 9.59, a 10% reduction in performance is a 10.51." I am not sure if I understant this correctly(non english speaker here) but do you suggest that he would run 10.51 without drugs?
He run 20.58 over 200m at age 16. Some people have just simply lots and lots and lots of talent.
Usain Bolt will be first with or without drugs.

There is no rule that drugs add 10% to result in every sport, maybe in weighlifting drugs add 10% but in majority of sports no.

From article: "Hell, consider that Bolt has run a 9.59, a 10% reduction in performance is a 10.51." I am not sure if I understant this correctly(non english speaker here) but do you suggest that he would run 10.51 without drugs?
He run 20.58 over 200m at age 16. Some people have just simply lots and lots and lots of talent.
Usain Bolt will be first with or without drugs.

There is no rule that drugs add 10% to result in every sport, maybe in weighlifting drugs add 10% but in majority of sports no.

Not the point but thanks for playing anyhow.

The point is this: drugs change the game completely in every sport. Principles, not specifics, please.

Yes I agree with your point.
Here is table of All-time women's shot put :http://www.alltime-athletics.com/wshotok.htm
The best throw in 21century is in 79th place overall( she was later disqualified for doping anyway) !!
Most of the best throws are from 80s , the golden age of doping.